Alan Keyes: Moving Forward in Faith

WND ^ | Saturday, September 8, 2001 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[Keyes For President]

Bump!

[Keyes For President]

The sad thing is that there is probably no issue on which it would be easier to unite a strong, electorally decisive majority. The passage of the California Civil Rights Initiative in 1996 showed that, rightly presented, the principle of official government refusal to categorize citizens by their race commands enormous popularity – even in liberal and racially ghettoized communities.

The most charitable understanding of the administration's actions to date is that it secretly desires to move the nation toward a colorblind future through its open pursuit of "racial reconciliation." If this is true, the means it has chosen must be judged in the light of the maxims of prudent statesmanship. Prudence teaches that compromises may sometimes be made. But all compromises are not created equal. There is a difference between playing your own hand and advising your opponent how best to play his.

Ping!

[Keyes For President]

Bush-administration policy on racial preferences is taking the shape of a tutorial for the racial balkanizers, teaching them how best to advance their own cause in the face of public disapproval. It is unwise appeasement at best.

At the worst, and I fear in fact, it is cooperation by a rudderless administration in the project the left has pursued for so long, and with such great damage – the manipulation of racial categorization and racial passions for the political benefit of those in power.

Ping.

[Keyes For President]

ping.

[mtngrl@vrwc]

More food for thought.

[diotima]

Thanks for the bump!

Racial preferences is the single most pernicious issue floating around the country today. It undermines every value and principle on which this country was founded, and I think it will be the destruction of this great land if it is not stopped.

There is NO EXCUSE to perpetuate the cause of racial preferences, minority favors or quotas. To encourage the identification of the citizenry in America to various sub-groups based on contingent human charateristics, facilitates a disregard for humanity as a whole in favor of allegience to ones politcally correct catagory.

I have no idea what the adminstration thinks it is doing. Throwing the left a bone has not worked in the past and it will not work now, perceived political expediency or not.

[Keyes For President]

btt

[EternalVigilance]

An eloquent and well-written piece, firmly founded in our current political reality.

Now the real question: Is anyone listening?

[Gelato]

As is mentioned in Keyes' editorial, Linda Chavez has been critical of the Bush administration on this issue. I wish her article last month was posted on FR. Those interested in reading it can go to the Washington Times website archives (if you don't mind the $2 fee).

Here's the teaser:

Published on August 9, 2001, The Washington Times Impending challenge of racial preferences

In addition to being morally repugnant, racial quotas and preferences are opposed by large majorities of Americans, as every public poll ever taken on the issue confirms. So why is the Bush administration toying with defending one of the most egregious racial preferences ever adopted? A pending Supreme Court case, Adarand vs. Mineta, forces the new administration to take sides in the quota wars. And indications are that the Bush Justice Department is about to come down on the wrong side - in favor . . .

Never mind our comfort with the overall performance of the Bush administration, we must realize that it has done things worthy of criticism.

[rdf]

Freerepublic, the great political library of the conservative movement, does indeed have the article, courtesy of JohnHuang2.

Here is a link:

Chavez on preferences

Cheers,

Richard F.

[Aerial]

It is unwise appeasement at best.

Bump for the Unappeasables!

[Gelato]

Thanks for the link. My search on FR and Google didn't turn it up. I should've known you would have it. ;)

By the way, I was just reading the National Review article you posted yesterday. It's amazing, isn't it, that the Bush administration would back such a Democrat theme as racial preferences. I thought we Republicans were above all that.

[Keyes For President]

btt

[mattflogel.com]

people from different races should be treated the same, but my problem with prop 209 is that it tries to make males and females the same in which they are not and never will be and shouldn't be.

[rdf]

my problem with prop 209 is that it tries to make males and females the same in which they are not and never will be and shouldn't be

There is a common sense exclusion clause regarding sex in 209. It's Article I, sect. 31(c) of the CA State Constitution, in case you want to look it up.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[Gelato]

This is it, correct?

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

[rdf]

Correct. We were hit hard on this by the NOW gang in the campaign, but you need it to respect certain real sexual differences, modesty questions, casting in plays, etc. etc. etc.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[Satadru]

It is increasingly clear to anyone with eyes to see that the Bush administration will be a hindrance in the struggle for a colorblind America. Where the citizen activists who led the CCRI campaign rightly see a clear issue of American principle, this administration seems incapable of seeing anything but opportunities for more pandering demonstrations of fake "compassion" and "inclusiveness," and for stroking of constituencies whose votes are needed in 2004.

Said it like it is!